I agree it is fairly clear from the OP that intervening games were played. It is not at all clear whether Pitcher A pitched in an intervening game. Perhaps Lou will tell us.

You seem to be ignoring the word "pitched" in h: "the provisions of (g) above shall apply, unless the pitcher of record pitched in another game or games after Game A was halted." This is why I asked Lou whether Pitcher A pitched in an intervening game.

When (g) says, "that pitcher’s pitch count will begin with the number of pitches delivered in that game;" there are two possible applications of the modified pitch count.

1. This combined pitch count can be used to limit the number of pitches thrown in the continuation. For example, since Pitcher A threw 35 pitches in the first part of Game A, and if this clause of (g) applies, then perhaps Pitcher A may only throw 50 pitches in the continuation. (No mention of this in the protest, since he only threw 32 in the continuation, but I always thought this was the primary application of the combined pitch count, but now I am questioning that assumption.)

2. This combined pitch count can be used to determine the amount of rest required for Pitcher A after the continuation. This appears to be what happened in the protest as reported by Lou.

In all of your examples, you are assuming that Pitcher A's combined pitch count is being used to determine rest requirements in some way completely independent of (g)(2). (In particular, you repeatedly assume a pitcher who threw only 20 pitches in the first part of the game would be subject to a combined pitch count while (g)(1) specifically says that for 20 or fewer pitches, the count will start at 0 in the resumption.) Isn't it more likely that, in the protest, they are applying clause (g)(2) (and further asserting that the combined pitch count is to be used for calculating days of rest)?

Finally, with no disrespect to Lou, we should keep in mind that things can get lost in the translation. (I was personally involved in such an occurence many years ago on a different email list where a poster who was at the game got the protest completely wrong, which I knew because I was listening to the protesting manager talk with the umpires.)

As I mentioned up higher in this thread, it seems to me that it is a huge hole in the way (h) is written that by pitching more a pitcher gains eligibility. This _cannot_ be what they mean!

What I think they really mean (and I can't reconcile this with the actual words, and JMHO) is:

1. If a suspended game is resumed the next day, apply (g), using the combined pitch count (if (g)(2) applies) to limit pitches in the resumption (e.g. 85 for the entire game) and calculate days of rest as if all the pitches were thrown on the day of the resumption.

2. If a suspended game is resumed after the next day, determine eligibility based on the pitcher's most recent outing, allow a full day's worth of pitches in the resumption and determine days of rest after the resumption from the number of pitches thrown in the resumption only.

In all of your examples, you are assuming that Pitcher A's combined pitch count is being used to determine rest requirements in some way completely independent of (g)(2). (In particular, you repeatedly assume a pitcher who threw only 20 pitches in the first part of the game would be subject to a combined pitch count while (g)(1) specifically says that for 20 or fewer pitches, the count will start at 0 in the resumption.) Isn't it more likely that, in the protest, they are applying clause (g)(2) (and further asserting that the combined pitch count is to be used for calculating days of rest)?

Mark, it really shouldn't matter if you use "g.1." or "g.2." As written in "e", rest requirements are based solely upon pitches per DAY, not per GAME.

There should be something written in "g" that states the final determination of rest requirements after the resumed game is completed is based upon either the number of pitches delivered in the full game combined, or on the day it was finished. If it's a combination of both as you allude, then "e" needs to be revised to say rest is based upon pitches per game/day.

I just have a hard time with this potential scenario, if it's as you think it is:

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 20 pitches, and Tommy was at 21. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby can pitch up to 85 pitches, while Tommy can only pitch 64. Bobby only pitches 35 pitches, and Tommy also only pitches 34. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in two days.

Both pitchers threw 55 pitches in the championship game. But you would argue that only 35 of Bobby's pitches count towards his rest requirements, while all 55 pitches count towards Tommy's. So Bobby can pitch in the "If" game since he only required one day of rest, and Tommy cannot because he required THREE days of rest. Just because of one pitch!

Mark, it really shouldn't matter if you use "g.1." or "g.2." As written in "e", rest requirements are based solely upon pitches per DAY, not per GAME.

I thought about that as well, but I assumed, if their intention is to use the combined pitch counts for calculating rest, then this is simply an exception to the "per day" wording of (e). (Just as allowing a kid who threw 40 pitches on Monday to pitch in the resumption on Tuesday is a violation of the days of rest rule - but (e) makes no mention of this exception imposed by (g).)

As it stands, (g) is worded too vaguely to know exactly what to do with the combined pitch count and part of the oversight could be the omission of the language saying that this supercedes (e).

I just have a hard time with this potential scenario, if it's as you think it is:

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 20 pitches, and Tommy was at 21. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby can pitch up to 85 pitches, while Tommy can only pitch 64. Bobby only pitches 35 pitches, and Tommy also only pitches 34. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in two days.

Both pitchers threw 55 pitches in the championship game. But you would argue that only 35 of Bobby's pitches count towards his rest requirements, while all 55 pitches count towards Tommy's. So Bobby can pitch in the "If" game since he only required one day of rest, and Tommy cannot because he required THREE days of rest. Just because of one pitch!

Sometimes, one pitch matters.

Suppose, the following year, Bobby was at 40 pitches and Tommy was at 41 pitches when the rains came down. The next day, when they resume the game, Bobby can pitch up to 45 more pitches but Tommy can't pitch at all. The day after that, they play the "If" game. Tommy can't pitch in that game either because he needs two days of rest from his 41 pitch rain-suspended outing.

I'm not debating that one pitch matters. My point with my scenario was that it allows the pitcher who threw more pitches when the game resumed to pitch in the next game, while the one who threw less cannot. I can't imagine that would be the case.

LL should make it consistent. Either all pitches in the game get combined, regardless how many were thrown before the game was called, to determine rest, or not.

I'm not debating that one pitch matters. My point with my scenario was that it allows the pitcher who threw more pitches when the game resumed to pitch in the next game, while the one who threw less cannot. I can't imagine that would be the case.

LL should make it consistent. Either all pitches in the game get combined, regardless how many were thrown before the game was called, to determine rest, or not.

How about this scenario:

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 21 pitches, and Tommy was at 40. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby pitches 29 pitches, and Tommy only pitches 11. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in three days (there was some more rain).

Bobby can pitch in the If game, but Tommy, despite having thrown 18 fewer pitches in the resumption, may not pitch in the If game. Is this completely unreasonable?

Is it even reasonable to let Tommy pitch in the resumption, given that, according to (e), he should have had two days of rest before pitching again? How does his arm know this is the resumption of a suspended game rather than the next game in pool play?

Last night, in the top of the 3rd inning, rain started and washed out the game. The continuation will be Friday. So that's today and tomorrow when pool play continues, and the pitching management is going to require a lot of perusal of the rule book.

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 21 pitches, and Tommy was at 40. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby pitches 29 pitches, and Tommy only pitches 11. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in three days (there was some more rain).

Bobby can pitch in the If game, but Tommy, despite having thrown 18 fewer pitches in the resumption, may not pitch in the If game. Is this completely unreasonable?

Why would Bobby be able to pitch in the If game three days later? In your scenario, and assuming LL's decision in the protest Lou mentioned, Bobby's rest requirements would be based upon the combination of his 21 pitches when the game was called, plus the 29 he pitched when it was resumed. Both Bobby and Tommy have 51 pitches total that carry over, which I think is wrong.

Tweaking your scenario, assume Bobby pitched only 19 pitches when the game was called, and then he threw 50 when it resumed. Why should Tommy be burdened with 51 pitches (combining the two halves of the game), and Bobby be burdened with only 50 pitches (not combining the two halves)?

LL's exceptions in "g" and "h" only cover pitching eligibility (in terms of the number of pitches allowed) for when the game resumes. I have no problem with, in your scenario, allowing Bobby to go up to 64 pitches when the game resumes, but limiting Tommy to only 45. What I do have a problem with is that the combination (or lack thereof) also affects the number of days of rest needed afterwards. Rest is based upon pitches delivered in a DAY, not a GAME. That's what the rules clearly stipulate.

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 21 pitches, and Tommy was at 40. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby pitches 29 pitches, and Tommy only pitches 11. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in three days (there was some more rain).

Bobby can pitch in the If game, but Tommy, despite having thrown 18 fewer pitches in the resumption, may not pitch in the If game. Is this completely unreasonable?

Why would Bobby be able to pitch in the If game three days later? In your scenario, and assuming LL's decision in the protest Lou mentioned, Bobby's rest requirements would be based upon the combination of his 21 pitches when the game was called, plus the 29 he pitched when it was resumed. Both Bobby and Tommy have 51 pitches total that carry over, which I think is wrong.

Tweaking your scenario, assume Bobby pitched only 19 pitches when the game was called, and then he threw 50 when it resumed. Why should Tommy be burdened with 51 pitches (combining the two halves of the game), and Bobby be burdened with only 50 pitches (not combining the two halves)?

LL's exceptions in "g" and "h" only cover pitching eligibility (in terms of the number of pitches allowed) for when the game resumes. I have no problem with, in your scenario, allowing Bobby to go up to 64 pitches when the game resumes, but limiting Tommy to only 45. What I do have a problem with is that the combination (or lack thereof) also affects the number of days of rest needed afterwards. Rest is based upon pitches delivered in a DAY, not a GAME. That's what the rules clearly stipulate.

1. 21+29=50 not 51 (I did not choose these numbers by accident)

2. Since LL is suspending its own days of rest requirement and allowing Tommy to pitch on no days rest after throwing 40 pitches, it seems reasonable to me that those pitches should factor in to his future rest requirements. I'm not sure it is reasonable to ignore 20 or fewer pitches, but at least this is consistent with up to 20 pitches requiring 0 days of rest. (For example, if Tommy throws 40 pitches on Monday and 20 pitches on Tuesday, should he be allowed to pitch on Wednesday? - if we ignore the 40 pitches on Monday, then the answer is yes, but if the resumption had not occurred on Tuesday, then just the 40 pitches on Monday would prevent Tommy from pitching on Wednesday.)

3. I don't think it makes sense to apply "g" in any way to games resumed after the next day (either to a. circumvent rest days, or b. determine number of pitches the pitcher of record can throw in the resumption or c. to determine days of rest)